On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> Oops, I was already taking a look at this. I figured it'd just be
>> something like the following, although maybe there's a more elegant way.
>
> Well, the stuff with prev_chars really ought to be skipped as well.
> (Yeah, it's probably a no-op, but readers shouldn't have to figure
> that out.)
>
> My thought was that duplicating the logic isn't so bad, as attached.
WFM!
--
nathan
